Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
jrn
FOCUS
Journal of Research
in Nursing
2006
SAGE PUBLICATIONS
London, Thousand Oaks and
New Delhi
VOL 11(3) 195203
DOI: 10.1177/
1744987106064635
Abstract The claim that mixed methods is the third methodological movement of
the twentieth century could have unexpected consequences for the future of research
in the social sciences and health disciplines. Implied is a belief that the mixing of
qualitative and quantitative methods will produce the best of both worlds. This
assumption, combined with inherent promises of inclusiveness, takes on a reality and
certainty in research findings that serves well the powerful nexus of economic
restraint and evidence-based practice. I argue that the use of the terms qualitative
and quantitative as normative descriptors reinforces their binary positioning,
effectively marginalising the methodological diversity within them. Ideologically,
mixed methods covers for the continuing hegemony of positivism, albeit in its more
moderate, postpositivist form. If naively interpreted, mixed methods could become
the preferred approach in the teaching and doing of research. Rather than the
promotion of more co-operative and complex designs for increasingly complex
social and health issues, economic and administrative pressures may lead to demands
for the quick fix that mixed methods appears to offer.
Key words mixed methods, postpositivism, evidenced-based practice, qualitative
research, quantitative research, methodology
Introduction
The recent promotion of mixed-methods research as the third methodological
movement (Tashakkori and Teddlie, 2003: ix) may have unexpected consequences
for social science and health research in the twentieth century. Clothed in a semblance of inclusiveness, mixed methods could serve as a cover for the continuing
hegemony of positivism, and maintain the marginalisation of non-positivist research
methodologies. I argue here that mixed methods as it is currently promoted is not a
methodological movement, but a pragmatic research approach that fits most comfortably within a postpositivist epistemology. In this paper I explore some of the
issues involved, specifically the conflation of the terms methods and methodology, the use of qualitative and quantitative as normative descriptors, and the
philosophical assumptions reflected in the thinking of mixed-methods research. I
conclude with a discussion of some of the possible consequences if mixed methods is
accepted uncritically as offering the best of both worlds.
195
Background
In the 1990s, the idea of combining qualitative and quantitative methods into one
methodology with variant typologies was proffered as a way to extend the repertoire
of social science and health research (Morse, 1991a; Creswell, 1994; Miller and
Crabtree, 1994). The idea was not new. From the 1950s, methods were often combined in evaluation research (Patton, 1981) and to explore issues and problems
when little was known (Campbell and Stanley, 1966). The notion of using two or
more methods to study a phenomenon was also promoted by Denzin (1978) as a
way to ensure confidence in the conclusions made. Mixed-methods approaches along
with qualitative research were classified in hierarchical taxonomies. They were
mostly fitted together within Level I Exploratory in the scientific research taxonomy although, when involving a survey, mixed methods slipped into Level II
Descriptive (Brink and Wood, 1978). What was new in the 1990s promotion was
the argument that mixed methods was an emerging new paradigm. Claims were
made that this integrated approach was the solution to the paradigm wars that had
ostensibly been raging between proponents of what are commonly termed qualitative and quantitative research paradigms since the 1970s (Gage, 1989; Hammersley,
1992). What mixed methods offered, it was argued, was a bridge between the paradigms and more diversity in methods available to researchers dealing with complex
problems in practice. The combining of qualitative and quantitative findings would
give more evidence, more certainty and therefore more confidence in the truth
value of the outcomes. These claims fell on fertile ground.
Mixed methods fitted well with the global economic imperative of the 1990s to
do more with less and with the rising evidence-based practice movement. The
growth in support for mixed methods, I suggest, was related to this economic/ideological nexus that created space for a new form of positivism. Logical positivisms
high ground in research had been shaken since the 1960s by critique from philosophers of science (Popper, 1959; Toulmin, 1961; Kuhn, 1970; Feyerabend; 1975)
and numerous proponents of the competing qualitative research paradigms. By the
1980s, these challenges to the epistemological, ontological and axiological underpin196
Discussion
The most often presented arguments for using a mixed-methods approach are its
ability to be holistic or to give a rounded understanding of process and outcome
(Bazeley, 1999: 284), and its ability to be inclusive of multiple approaches to a
problem so there is more certainty in the results. On the surface these arguments for
mixed-methods research sound quite reasonable. As does their logical extension into
education: rather than social science or health postgraduate students having to choose
between doing quantitative or qualitative research, why not a mixed methods course
so they are better equipped to deal with the complexity of social and health issues
and problems? Why not have the best of both worlds? An equally compelling argument is that it would help to break down the divide between the worlds of the
qualitative and quantitative researchers. Or, as Tessa Muncey (2005) argues, it could
be a bridge over troubled waters. There are, of course, some truths in these arguments so, why my disquiet? To help explain, I will discuss some sites of confusion in
mixed methods, the conflation of the terms methodology and methods and the
use of qualitative and quantitative as normative descriptors. Interspersed within
the discussion I will explore the thinking of research, and in the process posit some
unexpected consequences of the catch-all argument.
The student had no conception of the multiple and diverse methodologies glossed
over by her assumption that descriptive qualitative is all that there is to it. This
belief was reinforced by the response of her supervisor. If this belief was generally
held within the research community, it could become a barrier to funding and the
obtaining of support for teaching methodologically driven qualitative research.
The following scenario is a possibility when institutional pressure and naive understanding come together.
Scenario II: Fallout in the budget and reducing student numbers necessitates a review of
postgraduate papers being offered in a health faculty. The reviewing committee are primarily managers and administrators. They note that there are a variety of research methods
papers being offered from schools within the faculty that appear similar. A memorandum
is issued that for the following semesters only the Integrative Methods paper will be offered
as it gives the students the opportunity to learn both qualitative and quantitative research
so preparing them most adequately for clinical research. It is assumed that the teachers
would share the teaching and be pleased to have more time for clinical practice and their
research. The chairperson of the committee wonders why this solution had not been
enacted before. She is then very surprised when the teachers who taught the research
methods papers (one qualitative, the other quantitative), in a deep sense of unity, turn up
in her office saying, It mustnt be done.
Both scenarios reflect the potential for methodological talking past each other and the possible
effects of naive understanding. A concern not yet discussed in any detail in the literature is the effects of the promotion of mixed-methods research on funding.
Funding agencies are already favouring pragmatic mixed-methods approaches to
social and health issues. Compared with experimental and qualitative designs, mixedmethods research requires less specific methodological expertise, take less time, and
when compared with qualitative research, produces more generalisable findings.
Ideologically, mixed-methods research captures the imagination of those determined in
their efforts to achieve evidence-based practice, especially those agencies charged with
spending government money to ensure health and education for all. It also fits well
with the demand for standardisation in education and healthcare, both compelling
201
Conclusion
Internationally, researchers are scrambling to create proposals with mixed-methods
designs, for they are now a high priority for funding. Academic survival is fast
becoming dependent on effectively combining qualitative and quantitative methods
a mighty driver for motivating researchers to find out how to do mixedmethods research. But is it really a new methodological movement? Is it really integrating the best of both worlds? I have argued no on both counts. The thinking
of positivism continues in the thinking of mixed methods, its postpositivist pragmatic underpinnings assumed. The positivist scientific tradition continues to be privileged as a way to know; its dominance is strengthened, rather than challenged, by
mixed-methods research. If accepted naively as a new inclusive research movement,
the methodologies from the interpretative, radical/critical, poststructural and
indigenous paradigms, so recently accepted within social science and health
research disciplines, may become relegated to the margins as electives or advanced
research specialities. Our vision for a research culture in the social science and health
disciplines which embrace all research paradigms may be lost.
Key points
Mixed-methods use of the normative descriptors qualitative and quantitative effectively marginalises the methodological diversity within them
The claim that mixed-methods is the third methodological movement is
based on the erroneous assumption that mixing qualitative and quantitative methods will produce the best of both worlds
Ideologically mixed-methods continues the privileging and dominance
of the positivist scientific tradition
Mixed-methods claim of certainty in research findings serves well the
powerful nexus of economic restraint and evidence-based practice
A co-operative inquiry framework for mixed-methods research would
move debate beyond methodological competitiveness to a collective
approach to dealing with social and heatlh disparities and issues.
202
203